The English Premier League has announced that they will look into the possibility of one-upping the NFL and having each team play one game on foreign soil each season. I'm sure we'll hear the same refrains of "for the good of the game" "expanding our international exposure" or "bringing the game to the world's fans."
I don't buy it for a second.
EPL officials have brought up the NFL playing games at Wembley as an incentive for the change; a way to expand internationally when the market is tapped-out domestically. Just as the NFL cannot get any bigger in the US than it already is (Hence the "Toronto Bills"), the EPL cannot get any bigger than it is in England. It is also the most widely-followed league in the world. It is also a completely different situation from the NFL.
COMPETITION
The NFL schedule is a 16-game slate; six division games, four games against an intraconference division, another four against a division from the opposite conference, and two games chosen for a variety of reasons, which is a catchphrase for TV (This is partly why the Colts and Patriots have played each other every season the past five years.) Each season, any given team will not play 18 of the teams in the NFL.
The EPL schedule is a 38-game double round-robin. Every team plays each of the other 19 teams once at home, and once on the road. The team with the most points at the end of the season wins the title. In case of a tie, goal difference is the first tiebreaker. Under the "International EPL" plan, there would be a 39th game, with pairings decided by a blind draw, so that no team loses a home game.
The blind draw is presumably to give it a color of parity. Though it seems odd that the EPL seems so eager to protect the comeptitve integrity of the competition by not scrapping any home games, yet tosses away the "Every team twice" rule that has been part of English football for over a century so easily. In the end though, there WILL be winners and losers. One team will get to play Wigan Athletic three times, and one team will have to play Manchester United three times. This could very easily lead to unjust results. While it would seem exceedingly rare that a team would lose the title on goal difference, other harmful results could come about just as easily.
The top four teams at the end of the season qualify for the next season's Champions League, a finish that is worth tens of millions of dollars to teams. Even more valuable is what happens at the bottom of the table. While if the Miami Dolphins lose a bit of competitive advantage by giving up a home game, and finish in last, the only punishment is a couple of Leno jokes and the difficult decision of what to do with that #1 draft pick. In England there is no draft. The teams that finish at the bottom are relegated to their AAA. This can mean Darwinistic ruin very quickly. Leeds United was in the semifinals of the Champions League as recently as 2001, but following two relegations, they are now plying their trade in England's AA level, on a budget relative to their former EPL rivals as the Toledo Mud Hens would have to the Boston Red Sox. If another club finished in 18th and dropped, just because they couldn't make up a goal difference in a made-for-TV game against Arsenal while their 17th-place (and surviving) team got a patsy for their international game, there would be outrage.
SPREADING THE GAME
Who are we kidding? I can't blame the NFL for attempting to take the game international. Its following is only in a handful of countries, and has its largest popualrity in North America. Soccer is the most popular team sport in the world. FIFA has more member countries than the United Nations. Any idea that this is "spreading the popularity of the game" is a naked lie. This is nothing more than a cash grab, plain and simple. In addition, it will be a cash grab for the clubs who don't need it. While there might be packed stadiums in New York and Sydney to see Liverpool, Arsenal, or Chelsea, will there be the same kind of revenue injection for a neutral site game between Bolton Wanderers and Sunderland? (Bonus points if any YCS staff member has heard of EITHER of those teams). The rich will get richer, and the gap between the Big Four and the rest of the EPL will widen. The EPL does not have revenue-sharing in the sense that we would recognize it.
INTERNATIONAL IMPACTAnd what would any of this money be used for? To buy more players? Are there any players left? The EPL is the most lucrative league on the planet. More international stars ply their trade in England than anywhere else. League leader Arsenal does not start a single English player. The International appeal of the EPL is one reason why FIFA's president is suggesting a rule prohibiting teams from starting more than 5 international players (The so-called "6+5" Rule).
In addition, the playing of EPL games in foreign countries does nothing to help promote those countries' domestic leagues. How does an EPL game in New York help the development of MLS? Red Bull New York draws sellout crowds for exhibitions against foreign superclubs, but draws 15,000 for league games. However, even that game presumably brings in a few people who have not followed RBNY before, and if they get a good result, maybe picks up some fans. How does a game in Tokyo help the J-League, or a game in Sydney help the A-League; two successful, but relatively fledgling leagues in the same position as MLS, with the skilled players but without the tradition and big names of the English top-flight?
I may be wrong, but I'm having a really hard time seeing how this move is good for anyone besides the owners of the Big Four.
Read more...